JUDGMENT

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. - This order happens to be an interlocutor order, in the present pending second appeal, where the issue which is under consideration is with regards to the effect of the deceased respondent nos.1 and 2, having being impleaded in the Second Appeal; at the time of its institution on 06.08.2020, who were later on, reported to be deceased, as per the office report of the Registry dated 30.09.2020.

2. Brief facts, which are necessary to be considered, by this Court, for the purposes of deciding the said issue, about the effect of deceased person having being impleaded as party respondent in the second appeal, are that on 09.07.1992, the plaintiff/ appellant herein had instituted a suit, bearing the following cause title:-

^^le{k U;k;ky; flfoy tt ¼tw0fM0½ nsgjknwu

e wyokn la[;k lu~ 2012

1- Jh /khjsUnz eksgu 'kekZ

2- Jh 'kSysUnz eksgu 'kekZ

nksuksa iq=x.k Lo0 Jh gfj’kj.k] nksuksa dk LFkkuh; irk 12 U;w dS.V jksM] xzke gkFkh cMdyk] ijxuk iNoknwu] rglhy o ftyk nsgjknwuA

--------------oknhx.k

foijhr

1- Jh exu yky iq= Jh FksiMw

2- Jh Vsd pUn iq= Jh FksiM

3- Jh ?ku’;ke iq= Jh eqdUnh

lHkh dk vius }kjk crk;k x;k irk 18 gkFkh cMdyk] U;w dS.V jksM] nsgjknwuA

--------------izfroknhx.k

3. In the suit in question the plaintiffs/appellants, have sought a decree in the nature of demolition, eviction and damages for the user of the property, for which the relief in the suit was modulated as under:-

^^vr% oknhx.k izkFkZuk djrs gSa fd%&

d½ lwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe ij izfroknhx.k }kjk cyiwoZd :i ls cuk;s x;s voS/k vukf/kd`r fuekZ.k dks /oLr fd;k tkdj mlds uhps dh Hkwfe dk v/;klu oknhx.k dks fnyk;k tk;sA

[k½ izfroknhx.k dks LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk ls fuf"k) fd;k tk;s fd os lwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe ij dksbZ Hkh fuekZ.k dk;Z uk djsa rFkk uk gh mldh izd`fr dks cnysa rFkk uk gh fdlh rhljs O;fDr dk fgr mlesa lftZr djsa rFkk uk gh oknhx.k ds v/;klu esa dksbZ gLr{ksi cyiwoZd o voS/k :Ik ls djsaA

¼x½ vukf/kd`r bLrsekyh ds dkj.k oknhx.k dks izfroknh ls okn dkyhu o Hkfo"; dk gtkZuk fd tc rd mudk voS/k o vukf/kd`r fuekZ.k /oLr dj mlds uhps dh Hkwfe dk v/;klu mUgs fnyk;k tkrk gS] :0 5000@& izfrekg dh nj ls fnyk;k tk;sA

M-½ leLr okn O;; izfroknhx.k ls fnyk;k tk;sA

Pk½ vU; izfrdkj tks ekuuh; U;k;ky; mfpr le>s oknhx.k dks izfroknh ls fnyk;k tk;sA

Hkwfe {ks=Qy 0-0730 gS0 fd ftldk [kljk u0 299 ,oa [kkrk la[;k 240 ¼Qlyh&1417 ls 1422½ ekStk gkFkh cMdyk] ijxuk iNoknwu] rglhy lnj o ftyk nsgjknwu gS rFkk tks iwoZ uxj ikfydk nsgjknwu dh lhek esa Fkh rFkk vc uxj fuxe nsgjkn wu dh lhek esa gS^^

4. In the plaint in which the description of the property, as given therein was given at the foot of the plaint, which constituted to be a land having an area of 0.0730 hectares, which was situated in Khasra No.299 of Khata No.240 of Mauja, Hathi Barkala, Pargana Pachwadoon, Tehsil Sadar, District Dehradun. In the Fasli Year 1411 to 1422, the said land was recorded in the Nagar Palika, Dehradun (hereinafter to be called as the property in dispute). In opposition to the suit in question, the defendants/respondents, had filed their written statement on 13.07.2012, and subsequently after the exchange of the pleadings, learned trial court had framed number of issues, and the issue with which we are concerned; is the basis of the decision which was rendered by the learned trial court on 03.12.2013; wherein the trial court has proceeded to dismiss the suit on the ground that the suit since being barred by Order 7 Rule 11(d), holding thereof that the property in question since being a land which falls to be a revenue land hence it would be covered by the definition of land, which has been provided under Section 3(14) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms, Act 1950 (hereinafter to be called as U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act). The trial court has thus held that the suit would be barred by the provisions, as contained under Section 331 of U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act. Accordingly, the decree was rendered in the following manner:-

^^izFke vihy la[;k 63 lu~ 2017]

1- Jh /khjsUnz eksgu 'kekZ

2- Jh 'kSy